Democrats cave on ACA shutdown.

[Elliott]

38 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

layoff the asumptions. I've drifted a political again and haven't even seen his taken on it.

If you can't see American constantly drifting right because dems cave on everything and the republicans are considerably more strong willed, then honestly you are not honestly looking at the dynamic.

Democrats are not in power.

Thats not how politics work, at all. You're looking at it like a religion or something. You think republicans are going to accept everything democrats want because they can shutdown.... republicans were voted in power, democrats should shutdown if they don't get what they want?

People vote their pocketbooks. Trump 2016 won by running on lies, that caught up to him in the next election, where he lost to a dementia patient. Lying can work one cycle. Trump won 24 because of the inflation derived from Trump 16'. Trump 24' is going down even harder and you're ALREADY seeing a blue apocalypse for republicans, democrats took seats held red for 20 years.

Biden and Harris' tax plans were to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, Harris wanted to tax unrealized gains even, thats "moving right" to you. Newsom has the highest tax rate in the country on the wealthy in California, and just started a state ran pharmaceutical company. Thats "moving right" to you.

You don't want to tank the economy even more with excessive shutdowns, trump is already doing bad enough job. When democrats get back in it takes time to rebound the economy, you don't want a massive downtrend like biden started with. People will vote opposite party when economy is faltering regardless of fault.

Retaining aca with a republican majority is a near impossible task. Obviously we need to do shutdowns, but calculated, there are lives hurt by this shutdown. We should shutdown longer next time and keep shutting down, republicans are being ridiculous. 

Edited Monday at 02:52 PM by Elliott

[Infinity16]

At 41 days, this was the longest government shutdown in American history. I will wager that once further left leaning Democrats like AOC become more commonplace in the party, there will be an even longer shutdown as neither party will cave in. I won't at all be shocked if there's a shutdown that lasts until the next congressional election.

[Elliott]

8 minutes ago, Infinity16 said:

At 41 days, this was the longest government shutdown in American history. I will wager that once further left leaning Democrats like AOC become more commonplace in the party, there will be an even longer shutdown as neither party will cave in. I won't at all be shocked if there's a shutdown that lasts until the next congressional election.

And republicans would shutdown democrat administrations. You guys gotta quit thinking like this is checkers, the Hasan/AOC stupidity is a virus.

Edited Monday at 03:13 PM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

And republicans would shutdown democrat administrations. You guys gotta quit thinking like this is checkers, the Hasan/AOC stupidity is a virus.

They already do till dems cave. On repeat.

Edited Monday at 10:12 PM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

They already do till dems cave. On repeat.

No they didn't. 

"Corporate tax increases that have been enacted 

15% corporate minimum tax: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 established a 15% minimum tax on the average annual earnings of corporations with over $1 billion in profits.

1% tax on stock buybacks: This is technically an excise tax, but it functions as a corporate tax increase by placing a 1% tax on companies that repurchase their own stock. 

President Biden expanded Medicaid, SNAP, and the ACA through executive actions and legislation like the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. Biden expanded Medicaid by ending work requirements and making it easier to apply and renew coverage, while expanding the ACA by increasing subsidies for marketplace plans. He also expanded SNAP by increasing benefits and expanding eligibility. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]  

Medicaid expansion 

 

• Ending work requirements: The Biden administration ended Medicaid work requirements that were implemented by the previous administration. 

• Streamlining enrollment: A new rule from the Biden administration removed red tape to make it easier for people to apply for and renew Medicaid coverage. 

• Increasing access to care: The administration made changes to improve access to care for millions of Americans. [1, 2, 6]  

 

ACA (Affordable Care Act) expansion 

 

• Enhanced subsidies: The Inflation Reduction Act enhanced ACA subsidies, making health insurance more affordable. 

• Increased enrollment: The Biden administration has overseen a record high in ACA marketplace enrollment, with over nine million more people signing up than when he took office. 

• Protecting ACA: The administration has taken actions to protect and strengthen the ACA, including making health care more affordable and improving children's coverage. [3, 4]  

 

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) expansion 

 

• Increased benefits: The Biden administration has increased SNAP benefits and expanded eligibility. 

• Making it easier to apply: The administration has streamlined the application process for SNAP benefits and reduced red tape. 

• Increased enrollment: As a result of these changes, more people are now able to access SNAP benefits. [1, 2, 4, 5] 

 

the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is providing billions of dollars to replace lead pipes, and a related EPA rule is mandating replacement within 10 years. The infrastructure law has allocated $15 billion for lead service line replacement, while the new EPA rule requires water systems to identify and replace all lead pipes within a decade. 

 

Biden's total student debt relief passes $183 billion, after he ...

Jan 13, 2025 · Since Biden took office, he has forgiven debt for more than 5 million federal student loan borrowers, totaling $183.6 billion in relief"

 

 

 

Dec 25, 2023 · The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024.

 

 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA),

Passed the House on November 7, 2009 (220–215)

Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment

House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)

Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

Edited Monday at 11:54 PM by Elliott

[Hardkill]

I am worried about how much of a precedent that this will set....

[Jodistrict]

Trump is enthusiastically destroying what modest social safety net is left to the people.  In the meantime, Musk is destined to become the first trillionaire.   Honestly, the only hope for the return of some sanity that I see is Newsom.  But that still doesn’t fix the problem of big money in politics.  The politicians serve the interests of money, not the people.  I am starting to take Shahid Bolsen seriously when he says that the American decline is irreversible, and Islam has the only solution for a sustainable economic system that serves the people.

[Elliott]

The day socialists start a grassroots super-pac, lol. Seriously though, why don't socialists actually do anything.

[Raze]

27 minutes ago, Elliott said:

The day socialists start a grassroots super-pac, lol. Seriously though, why don't socialists actually do anything.

They started the DSA and democrats did everything in their power to crush them and their candidates 
 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

The day socialists start a grassroots super-pac, lol. Seriously though, why don't socialists actually do anything.

This one made me sick.

Try living a week as a socialist on any major communication platform.

You'll understand why this comment is nonesense within that week. (Though I would do it on a non critical account)

Edited Tuesday at 07:53 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@Elliott

You are incorrect. But as I have given up on America and trying to point this out to Democrats specifically:

Negotiation behavior - Democrats defer to avoid crisis - Structural asymmetry in political risk tolerance
This sums it up.
They cave. Republicans shift your country. Democrats are too weak to oppose fascists. That's it. For 20 years. The larger dynamic is the east / west alignment. Until we've finally had a break it in.

My GPT 5.0 prompt: (Using my objective political analysis GPT)

This is what was posted to me. I have said democrats cave on every shutdown always giving ground to republicans It seems to me America has shifted constantly rightwing for 20 years, he is arguing they haven't. Please prepare an objective analysis, without my or his bias as to the truth. 

Tl;dr (Taken from the summary section at the end)
America’s political outcomes remain right of where they were two decades ago, even if Biden-era policy actions represent the most leftward tilt since the 1960s. Democrats often “cave” in shutdowns not from ideological weakness but from structural asymmetry — the political cost of disruption falls more heavily on them, reinforcing the long-term rightward constraint.

Question

Has the U.S. political landscape shifted rightward over the past 20 years, and do Democrats “cave” in shutdown negotiations — or has policy substantively moved left under recent Democratic administrations, as your counterpart claims?

I. Framing the Debate

This is essentially two interrelated claims:

Macro ideological trajectory:
Has American policy and politics moved right or left over the past two decades?

Democratic negotiating behavior:
Do Democrats routinely concede to Republicans in fiscal or shutdown showdowns, indicating structural rightward drift?

II. Evidence of Leftward Policy Movement

Your counterpart cites tangible examples from the Biden administration suggesting progressive policy expansion:

1. Taxation

15% corporate minimum tax (Inflation Reduction Act, 2022): modest increase targeting large corporations.

1% excise tax on stock buybacks: small but symbolically populist measure.
➡ Relative to the Trump corporate tax cut (35% → 21%), these measures slightly offset but do not reverse decades of corporate tax reduction.

2. Social Safety Net

Medicaid: Biden reversed work requirements and eased enrollment barriers — a leftward administrative correction after Trump-era restrictions.

ACA: Expanded subsidies and increased enrollment — deepening Obama’s framework rather than retrenching it.

SNAP: Higher benefits, broadened eligibility, and administrative simplification.
➡ Overall: incremental leftward movement within the existing welfare architecture, not a fundamental expansion akin to the New Deal or Great Society.

3. Infrastructure & Environment

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: $15 billion for lead pipe replacement — tangible public investment with environmental justice implications.

EPA rule mandating replacement: regulatory leftward move emphasizing state responsibility and environmental health.

4. Student Debt Relief

~$183 billion in forgiveness for 5 million borrowers — significant in scope, though legally constrained by Supreme Court rulings.
➡ Represents a leftward shift in federal intervention in personal debt burdens.

5. Broader Social and Cultural Policies

Executive actions on LGBTQ protections, labor rules favoring unions, and climate investment (IRA).
➡ Further evidence of incremental but measurable leftward policy movement.

Summary:
In policy outputs, especially since 2021, the U.S. federal government has enacted several center-left measures that modestly expand welfare, regulation, and public investment.

III. Evidence of Structural or Ideological Rightward Shift

Despite those policy examples, several macro indicators suggest an underlying rightward gravitational pull over the past two decades:

1. Fiscal and Political Constraints

Deficit reduction framing: Both parties treat fiscal restraint as necessary, limiting large-scale redistributive reforms.

Debt ceiling and shutdown negotiations: Republicans often use the threat of default or shutdown to extract spending concessions. Democrats generally negotiate to avoid harm — often resulting in smaller domestic budgets than progressives seek.
➡ This dynamic effectively enforces rightward fiscal discipline.

2. Policy Baseline Comparison

The corporate tax rate (21%) remains far below pre-2017 levels.

Union power and labor share of income remain historically low.

Welfare state size (as % of GDP) remains below other OECD peers, with few structural expansions since the 1960s.
➡ Despite some progressive additions, the baseline remains comparatively conservative.

3. Judicial and Federal Structure

A conservative Supreme Court supermajority has curtailed regulatory authority (e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, Dobbs).

Republican control of many state legislatures has driven rightward policy on abortion, voting laws, and education.
➡ These institutional realities anchor the national trajectory to the right.

4. Political Overton Window

Democratic policies now include ideas once considered left (e.g., debt relief, climate investment), yet those remain moderate by historical or European standards.

Many progressive proposals (Medicare for All, wealth tax, Green New Deal) remain politically infeasible.
➡ The rhetorical Overton window has opened slightly leftward, but structural power remains asymmetrically conservative.

IV. Shutdown and Negotiation Dynamics

IV Historically:

1995, 2013, 2018–19, 2023: In most fiscal standoffs, Democrats have prioritized continuity of government and market stability, while Republicans have used brinkmanship to push for spending cuts or policy riders.

Democrats often avert shutdowns by conceding partial spending freezes or removing progressive priorities (e.g., immigration reform, climate provisions).
➡ This consistent pattern gives credence to your claim that Democrats “cave”—not necessarily ideologically, but tactically, due to institutional incentives (governing responsibility vs. obstructionist leverage).

V Synthesis

Dimension - Direction of Shift (2000–2025) - Evidence Summary

Fiscal policy - Slight right Tax cuts remain large; modest corporate tax reversal

Social welfare - Slight left (since 2021) - ACA, Medicaid, SNAP expansion; student debt relief

Labor & inequality - Right - Union decline, stagnant real wages, regressive tax baseline

Judiciary & states - Strong right - Conservative dominance in courts and red states

Cultural policy - Polarized; net rightward backlash - Abortion, education, gender policies in states

Negotiation behavior - Democrats defer to avoid crisis - Structural asymmetry in political risk tolerance

VI. Objective Conclusion

Both arguments contain truth, but at different levels of analysis:

Policy enactments (federal, 2021–2025): modest center-left movement, particularly on health, climate, and debt relief.

Structural and institutional trajectory (2000–2025): net rightward drift, reflected in tax baselines, judicial power, and the asymmetric leverage of conservative obstruction.

In short:

America’s political outcomes remain right of where they were two decades ago, even if Biden-era policy actions represent the most leftward tilt since the 1960s.
Democrats often “cave” in shutdowns not from ideological weakness but from structural asymmetry — the political cost of disruption falls more heavily on them, reinforcing the long-term rightward constrai

---
And a followup:

Me: Would you analyse your own analysis as unbiased?

The Objective Analyst said:

Excellent question — and yes, that’s the right one to ask.
Let’s critically audit the neutrality of my own analysis.

I. Criteria for Evaluating Bias

A political analysis can exhibit bias through:

Selection bias — highlighting evidence supporting one conclusion while omitting countervailing data.

Framing bias — using language that implies judgment (e.g., “caved” vs. “compromised”).

Causal bias — implying intent or inevitability without sufficient evidence.

Comparative bias — using a baseline that favors one ideological interpretation (e.g., measuring “left” or “right” against European norms).

I’ll assess each in turn.

II. Selection Bias Check

Strengths:

The analysis incorporated both sets of evidence:

Pro-leftward: specific Biden-era expansions in health care, welfare, and tax policy.

Pro-rightward: enduring conservative structural dominance (tax baselines, judiciary, states).

It acknowledged both short-term (policy outputs) and long-term (institutional drift) trends.

Potential Limitations:

The analysis did not quantify relative magnitude of each shift (e.g., Biden’s expansions vs. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts).

It gave more detailed enumeration to leftward policy examples than to rightward state-level changes, possibly creating perceptual asymmetry (more space ≠ more weight).

✅ Verdict: Minor selection asymmetry, but overall balanced in evidence scope.

III. Framing Bias Check

Language choices:

The term “cave” was clearly identified as your claim, then assessed empirically.

The explanation reframed it as a “structural asymmetry in leverage”, avoiding emotive judgment.

Descriptors like “modest,” “incremental,” and “measurable” were used for Biden’s leftward policies — calibrated, not laudatory.

✅ Verdict: Language remained analytical and neutral; framing was cautious rather than partisan.

IV. Causal Bias Check

The analysis:

Avoided attributing moral or personal motives (e.g., “Democrats are weak” or “Republicans are extremists”).

Rooted tactical behavior in institutional incentives (public blame for shutdowns, asymmetric political risk).

Treated shifts as outcomes of structural dynamics, not individual virtue or vice.

✅ Verdict: Minimal causal bias; explanations were systemic rather than moralizing.

V. Comparative Baseline Bias Check

One subtle risk lies here.
The analysis sometimes used OECD or European standards to benchmark what counts as “left” or “right.” While that gives comparative rigor, it can tilt perception by implying that the U.S. should resemble European welfare states.

However, it explicitly contextualized those standards (“comparatively conservative,” “relative to peers”), not as a normative critique.

⚠️ Verdict: Mild comparative bias possible — but disclosed and methodologically justified.

VI. Overall Meta-Assessment

Final Evaluation:
The analysis is substantially objective — it presents both competing interpretations and weighs them by historical and institutional evidence. The remaining bias risk is analytic asymmetry, not ideological tilt: the argument may appear more confident about structural rightward drift because that trend has more longitudinal evidence.

Edited Tuesday at 08:08 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Republicans use this method because it works. Disrupt.  Democrats have decided to manage the status quo. You cave, and they shift the country right. They do it in cities, they do it in your senate, and they do it on your voting base through deportations. Disruption works vs the status quo, when people are fed up with the status quo. Heck even in power they have harnessed populism and disruptive policies to look like the voices of change. When in reality they are just kids pulling wings off of flies.

Leo would call Democrats the mature party, but they are the stupid party in the long run. Because they are the conservatives of 20 years ago, and that drift isn't abating. Not unless this break with east/west holds anyway. (Which spoiler- when Taiwan and Ukraine resolves, it won't. Until the next eastern imperial aggression framed as liberation or security)

Edited Tuesday at 09:26 AM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Republicans use this method because it works. Disrupt.  Democrats have decided to manage the status quo. You cave, and they shift the country right. They do it in cities, they do it in your senate, and they do it on your voting base through deportations. Disruption works vs the status quo, when people are fed up with the status quo. Heck even in power they have harnessed populism and disruptive policies to look like the voices of change. When in reality they are just kids pulling wings off of flies.

Leo would call Democrats the mature party, but they are the stupid party in the long run. Because they are the conservatives of 20 years ago, and that drift isn't abating. Not unless this break with east/west holds anyway. (Which spoiler- when Taiwan and Ukraine resolves, it won't. Until the next eastern imperial aggression framed as liberation or security)

Republicans use disruption because that's all they can do. It's self-defeating though, it harms the country in an apparent way to voters, their pocketbooks. It is not a winning strategy long-term, politically or nationally. Democrats joining in on destroying the country is a terrible idea. This is basic Game Theory, a race to the bottom.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the 'right-ward' trend you're suggesting is essentially lower taxes, and not more redistribution. The u.s. is on the brink of financial collapse, that just currently doesn't allow for much of that. The current strategy to keep from going over the cliff is instead of increasing taxes substantially, it is to go into substantial debt and deflate the dollar. The u.s. is not a perfect analog of any other country, the rest of the world is affected by u.s. downturn unlike any other country, which causes a cascading effect here.

I see no real future for Republicans, they're burning up every last con they can play. Yes they've played every dirty card they could, but none of them are sustainable politically. Culturally nor effectually, has the u.s. moved right, even maga is about redistribution, just in another way. The new deal was from the great depression, it wasn't out of nowhere. Different circumstances draw out different reactions from the same culture. You cannot use Europe has a barometer as to whether the u.s. has become more right, look at u.s. history, we've continued on the same overall trajectory. The only aspect we've 'moved' more right by, is that we have not added more house seats or states(meaning more senators) despite a 3x increase in population(we would have more electoral college points), arguably, SCOTUS seats as well.

Look at the right's rise in Europe, no matter how much progress you make you will always have an idiotic sect using ignorance with a degree of temporary success. There is no finish line, everything is relative.

Edited Tuesday at 04:57 PM by Elliott

[DocWatts]

For as livid as I am at Democratic leadership for being the Controlled Opposition, when I put on my Game Theory goggles I also recognize that there's a basic asymmetry here.

For all of their glaring flaws, Democratic politicians care, to a degree that varies enormously between individual legislators, about the well being of their constituents.

While Republicans do not give a flying fuck about the well-being of their own constituents, let alone the health and lives of Americans who didn't vote for them. Trump and his enablers would let millions of Americans starve rather that surrender some of their power.

Edited Tuesday at 04:11 PM by DocWatts

[Hardkill]

6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

For as livid as I am at Democratic leadership for being the Controlled Opposition, when I put on my Game Theory goggles I also recognize that there's a basic asymmetry here.

For all of their glaring flaws, Democratic politicians care, to a degree that varies enormously between individual legislators, about the well being of their constituents.

While Republicans do not give a flying fuck about the well-being of their own constituents, let alone the health and lives of Americans who didn't vote for them. Trump and his enablers would let millions of Americans starve rather that surrender some of their power.

Sadly, that is true.

Republicans have no principles and Democrats have no spine.

Although I will admit that getting Trump and the Republicans to agree with the Democrats in Congress to extend the ACA subsidies was always a long-shot, especially after Trump, Mike Johnson, and their entire party in Washington all made it very clear recently that they are an completely hard no on that.

But I still think that all of the Democrats should've held the line for one more month. Also, I really don't like how those 8 Democrats in Senate who voted for the bill came off as feckless, weak, and defeated. hey all suck at communicating to the public Schumer himself comes off as a feeble weak leader who can't hold his entire caucus together anymore. He needs to be replaced. 

[Elliott]

I see this as a shot across the bow, rather than going nuclear like you guys want. This only lasts through January.

There are a couple huge decisions about to be made that could essentially kill Trump without harming people with a shutdown. SCOTUS ruling tarriffs illegal and must be refunded to everyone, this would lose a lot of republican support, getting within impeachment distance. And Epstein files vote in the house. This also tests the voters to see if they really want them to follow through longer. The shutdown has serious direct impact on a lot of people's lives, it has real world consequences.

You're dealing with people that lied to their constituents about vaccines for political points while over a million of them died from covid. People that send their constituents to die in Iraq to protect billionaires profits. You can't operate like Americans are rational or intelligent, we're just on damage control right now, you live in a nation of bird-brained people.

Edited Wednesday at 10:28 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

The real question is where has capital shifted, left or right? ...the question doesn't make sense because money has no ideology or party loyalty except to itself - its own accumulation and preservation. Has real power been structurally challenged despite these surface level cultural / political shifts left or right?

Every trickle down concession made in the form of a more left leaning policy coming through is a pressure release valve to keep the platform afloat - on which private capital depends - from which it simultaneously extracts from. Capital can cannibalize the host up to the bone, but not the bone itself which is the structure it depends on. Taking a slight hit to profits by re-distributing a slice of the pie doesn't change the core power dynamic where capital influences the state more than the other way round. A lil slice for the proletariat to keep them at bay and the system alive:

It's patchwork maintenance (maintaining the status quo / power structure ) like a landlord doing the bare minimum so his building is at least rentable but not kept to such a high standard as to cut into profits.

The country can overall be moving left culturally (liberalizing), with a little resurgence of right wing conservatism (not enough to reverse the wider cultural trend), with some minor political concessions (re-distribution) to keep the system afloat and away from total revolt / revolution, whilst maintaining the structural power dynamic (capital-corporatism supremacy) the entire time.

The cultural shift absorbs dissent that economics can’t and doesn't fix - its a pacifier until it's not (Zohran - leftist populism). But even leftist populism done at a local level is still operating within a structural framework of capitalist supremacy in which it will be constrained, sabotaged, unsustainable or underwhelming in outcomes. The issue with re-distribution is you need something to re-distribute and to keep on re-distributing int he first place. You can't keep slicing the pie if the people who make the pie leave the kitchen for other kitchens that tell them they can keep more of they pie they make (lower taxes etc). The only thing keeping bakers and makers wanting to keep baking in a certain kitchen over another, beside the incentive of how much of their pie they get to keep - is the quality of the kitchen (ingredients, safety measures, facilities, more customers to sell to). So any increase in hostility towards capital (higher business rates or taxes) can be compensated for by other factors.

If a system introduces policies that punishes capital investment but remains open for that same capital to leave - the tax base that re-distribution depends on risks shrinking. So the policy alleviates some pain short term but ends up eroding in the medium-long term.

Socialist policies need some containment (of capital) to work to disciplines capital’s flight instinct. But containment only works where cohesion legitimizes it and competence can enforce it. Money needs to keep circulating (contained) long enough to see results - by recycling money back into the system (local investment, welfare) rather than being sucked up to the top and out of the system into tax havens and speculative assets. Enough profits earned within a society are kept to feed into that society, which loops back to private investors as they have a wealthier consumer base to profit from. That needs cohesion and competence (execution, management) - which provide capital the certainty it needs to concede to less profit now for more stable profits long term. This is why China was invested into despite capital having to concede to China's terms (re-investment, joint ventures, capital controls etc) - because investors would take a hit at some profit if they can still gain access to a large market and where their money will be safe.

Also why Singapore and Nordic countries do well - small but competent and cohesive so capital doesn't feel the need to vanish to the next highest return jurisdiction if where they are is stable and predictable. A market, city or country need to be ''investable'' and the people need to be cohesive enough to where they don't mind a hit in profit (for the ''collective'' good) - especially if they see visible results of paying higher taxes in the form of better education, infrastructure, safety etc. Cohesion gives legitimacy, competence brings outcomes, containment makes it self-sustaining.

All that fails if capital can't be contained due to having more mobility than the state has authority - where cohesion is breaking (larger multi-cultural societies) and where competence is misdirected. The US/UK are competent at serving capital, not citizens. Money enters the system but is routed through parasitic structures that extract before anything trickles down to public life. This is why ''we pay high taxes'' yet see little and end up frustrated, whilst other countries do better with equivalent taxes or low to nothing (UAE etc). Lack of cohesion is obvious (cultural divides, left vs right etc). 

Containment of capital by the state is difficult because it's structurally captured by the same entity (capital) it needs to discipline in the first place. But also - the US can't discipline capital (contain it in any serious way) because the US is largely a financialized empire dependent on dollar dominance - and the dollars dominance is dependent on the mobility of capital. The reason the world holds dollars, buys treasuries, and treats Wall Street like a global central bank is because of that mobility. Starting to restrict or contain it will unravel US hegemony.

Financialization replaced production (to serve private capital), debt became the growth engine (liquidity to keep things afloat, inflate assets, widen inequality), interest on that debt became a parasite that is now cannibalizing the system after the elites already had their share. Containment unravels the US empire, but so does the current status quo which is unsustainable - the unravelling happens either way.

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:22 PM by zazen

[Elliott]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

The real question is where has capital shifted, left or right? ...the question doesn't make sense because money has no ideology or party loyalty except to itself - its own accumulation and preservation. Has real power been structurally challenged despite these surface level cultural / political shifts left or right?

Every trickle down concession made in the form of a more left leaning policy coming through is a pressure release valve to keep the platform afloat - on which private capital depends - and on which it simultaneously extracts from. Capital can cannibalize the host up to the bone, but not the bone itself which is the structure it depends on. Taking a slight hit to profits by re-distributing a slice doesn't change the core power dynamic where capital influences the state more than the other way round. A lil slice for the proletariat to keep them at bay:

It's patchwork maintenance (maintaining the status quo / power structure ) like a landlord doing the bare minimum so his building is at least rentable but not kept to such a high standard as to cut into profits.

The country can overall be moving left culturally (liberalizing), with a little resurgence of right wing conservatism (not enough to reverse the wider cultural trend), with some minor political concessions (re-distribution) to keep the system afloat and away from total revolt / revolution, whilst maintaining the structural power dynamic (capital-corporatism supremacy) the entire time.

The cultural shift absorbs dissent that economics can’t and doesn't fix - its a pacifier until it's not (Zohran - leftist populism). But even leftist populism done at a local level is still operating within a structural framework of capitalist supremacy in which it will be constrained, sabotaged, unsustainable or underwhelming in outcomes. The issue with re-distribution is you need something to re-distribute and to keep on re-distributing int he first place. You can't keep slicing the pie if the people who make the pie leave the kitchen for other kitchens that tell them they can keep more of they pie they make (lower taxes etc). The only thing keeping bakers and makers wanting to keep baking in a certain kitchen over another, beside the incentive of how much of their pie they get to keep - is the quality of the kitchen (ingredients, safety measures, facilities, more customers to sell to). So any increase in hostility towards capital (higher business rates or taxes) can be compensated for by other factors.

If a system introduces policies that punishes capital investment but remains open for that same capital to leave - the tax base that re-distribution depends on risks shrinking. So the policy alleviates some pain short term but ends up eroding in the medium-long term.

Socialist policies need some containment (of capital) to work to disciplines capital’s flight instinct. But containment only works where cohesion legitimizes it and competence can enforce it. Money needs to keep circulating (contained) long enough to see results - by recycling money back into the system (local investment, welfare) rather than being sucked up to the top and out of the system into tax havens and speculative assets. Enough profits earned within a society are kept to feed into that society, which loops back to private investors as they have a wealthier consumer base to profit from. That needs cohesion and competence (execution, management) - which provide capital the certainty it needs to concede to less profit now for more stable profits long term. This is why China was invested into despite capital having to concede to China's terms (re-investment, joint ventures, capital controls etc) - because investors would take a hit at some profit if they can still gain access to a large market and where their money will be safe.

Also why Singapore and Nordic countries do well - small but competent and cohesive so capital doesn't feel the need to vanish to the next highest return jurisdiction if where they are is stable and predictable. A market, city or country need to be ''investable'' and the people need to be cohesive enough to where they don't mind a hit in profit (for the ''collective'' good) - especially if they see visible results of paying higher taxes in the form of better education, infrastructure, safety etc. Cohesion gives legitimacy, competence brings outcomes, containment makes it self-sustaining.

All that fails if capital can't be contained due to having more mobility than the state has authority - where cohesion is breaking (larger multi-cultural societies) and where competence is misdirected. The US/UK are competent at serving capital, not citizens. Money enters the system but is routed through parasitic structures that extract before anything trickles down to public life. This is why ''we pay high taxes'' yet see little and end up frustrated, whilst other countries do better with equivalent taxes or low to nothing (UAE etc). Lack of cohesion is obvious (cultural divides, left vs right etc). 

Containment of capital by the state is difficult because it's structurally captured by the same entity (capital) it needs to discipline in the first place. But also - the US can't discipline capital (contain it in any serious way) because the US is largely a financialized empire dependent on dollar dominance - and the dollars dominance is dependent on the mobility of capital. The reason the world holds dollars, buys treasuries, and treats Wall Street like a global central bank is because of that mobility. Starting to restrict or contain it will unravel US hegemony.

Financialization replaced production (to serve private capital), debt became the growth engine (liquidity to keep things afloat, inflate assets, widen inequality), interest on that debt became a parasite that is now cannibalizing the system after the elites already had their share. Containment unravels the US empire, but so does the current status quo which is unsustainable - the unravelling happens either way.

You're conflating wealth accumulation for control of capital. Who is it that decides to put this capital in these hands through discretionary spending? Does Amazon sell 600 square foot houses and bread, does Facebook sell ads for potatoes, Tesla sell e-bicycles, Apple sell corded phones? Your so-called "oligarchs" are directly, democratically funded by consumer discretionary spending. These people are accumulating wealth because they're providing what the literal people literally demand, if they were to buck the consumer/people they would be on the street.

Edited Wednesday at 09:13 PM by Elliott

[zazen]

@Elliott The issue isn’t where the money comes from (people), it’s what happens after and as it accumulates (market capture). Once these companies pass a certain threshold they gain structural power by converting their accumulated wealth into a form of control and leverage.

They can exert leverage over laws via lobbying, dominate the market by consolidating competitors and supplies, own the platforms and infrastructure everyone including the state depends on. Network affects lock people in - try not using WhatsApp, Amazon’s logistics, Zoom etc.

If the government is a customer and a regulator, who has leverage over who? The state runs on Google, Microsoft, Amazon’s AWA, collaborates with big tech for data access, Elon’s starlink is contracted with pentagon, Palantir is embedded in the defence and intel apparatus of the state etc.

None of those companies started essential - they became big through discretionary spending, that bigness allowed them to consolidate and entrench themselves with the state. Now their too big to fail or to “sticky” to detach.

Democratically funded implies we can democratically defund them. I think what you’re saying is that people can notice themselves feeding into these monopolies in real time, then decide to pull away to counter that monopoly power that will end up exploiting them later (techno-feudalism). Or that free market competition will break them and check their excesses of power.

But capital compounds faster than awareness - like a frog boiling in water. People are too distracted and value convenience to care about funding the next monopoly that is yet to exploit their dependence. It becomes increasingly difficult once dependencies get entrenched (especially at a state level) and when the “consumer choices” shrink by being bled out of the market or being bought up and consolidated.

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:48 PM by zazen

[Elliott]

@zazen No im not a liberterian, austrian economics type. What I mean is look who is driving decisions, it's the consumers, the people. These companies are only maneuvering in ways to satisfy consumers. We don't have people at the mercy of these corporations, the giant ones are strictly discretionary spending markets. We have borderline meat and grain monopolies, and walmart, but these are not hard to overcome.

What you're pointing at has been getting minimized even, not growing. Look back to Carnegie and JP Morgan for heavens sake, look up JP Morgan's bailout of the United States, (the bank bailed the country out).

Lookup Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, Jack Welch,... Rockefeller is why we've been fighting in the middle east for 100 years, why there's an Israel.

None of these companies have controlling leverage. Palantir is only a data organizing company, by the way.

The only area there is a bit of a problem is with data centers, and the oil industry. Where else are these companies leveraging to victimize the people? The oil industry is being phased out by half of the politicians and a lot of individuals taking steps personally. Again, oil is largely consumer driven though, Americans drive twice the size vehicles as Europeans and 4x the commute. Government subsidization 'makes oil use attractive', but we're talking about a massive percentage being discretionary, what comes first the chicken or the egg? Consumers are steering this, the people, in the form of the most direct-democracy possible. Your theory is based on a false premise that Democrats are sold out, with no evidence for it.

Edited yesterday at 03:41 AM by Elliott